Though I use Word I can't open the ncet.doc.
For all those who are interested in what is wrong with neoclassical
economic theory should read Steve Keen's book, Debunking Economics.
If you want a critique that is directed at neoclassical micro see
the attached paper. There are many ways to show that neoclassical
micro is incoherent--internal critiques, external critiques,
empirical critiques--to easily conclude that it should be completely
dismissed.
Fred Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34731] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
jks wrote,
Communersability isn'tr interpersonal comparison of utilities. It's
the assumption that even within a single individual's utility
functions all values are commebsurable, that it's possible to
compoare, e.g., my distaste for brussels sprouts with my contempt
for Enron, my love for my sweetie with my delight in trashy movies.
--------------------
In standard high NC theory, noncommerserability--as you've defined
it--isn't a problem. You don't need to be able to sum up for an
individual to get a single value for "utility." You don't even need
any idea of utility at all in high neoclassical theory. All you need
is some consistency in the choices that people make: revealed
preference and all that. No primal concept of utility is needed;
only the _observation_ that people make choices in a "reasonable"
way (and you don't need to posit what motivates these choices).
PO just requires that more for person A (one more pencil) requires
less something for person B (one less brussels sprout). It doesn't
matter how you measure the "harm" to person B. In high NC theory
utility is replaced by a vector of the individual items a person
consumes. If any more to person A causes person B to move from
consumption vector B1 to consumption vector B2 (and they would have
chosen B1 over B2 if given the opportunity--that is, you would
observe this which requires no reference to utility as it is an
_observation_) this is not a PO move. No need to posit utility only
that people can, and do, make choices in a consistent fashion. As
long as someone can say, "hey I would rather have B1 over B2"
everything is okay (as far as its use/nonuse of utility notions.)
So high NC theory says. Although most NC theorists are weird, enough
are smart enough to have "immunized" most of their theory from
internal logical challenges.
Eric
.
Content-Type: application/msword;
name="ncet.doc"
Content-Description: ncet.doc
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ncet.doc"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ncet.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (0005610D)
--
Dr. W.R. Needham
Associate Chair, Undergraduate Affairs
Department of Economics
200 University Avenue West,
University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Tel: 519-888-4567 ext: 3949
Fax: 519-725-0530
web: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/fac-needham.html
["We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our
fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run
as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Herman Melville]
["Fascism should be more properly called corporatism, since it is the
merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini]
